linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] arch/tile update for 3.1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E96DBB2.9020104@tilera.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:38:10 -0400
From:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] arch/tile update for 3.1

On 10/13/2011 2:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com> wrote:
>> Please pull the following trivial change for 3.1 from:
>>
>>  git://github.com/cmetcalf-tilera/linux-tile.git stable
>>
>> This change allows 3.1-rc9 to build for the Tile architecture.  A bombing
>> of <asm/atomic.h> to <linux/atomic.h> erroneously modified a couple
>> of places where we were relying on some assembly constants in the tile
>> <asm/atomic.h>.  Thanks!
> This is not *at*all* what I get when I pull that branch.
>
> I get a merge and two other commits too.
>
> Not pulled.

Mea culpa.  I've fixed the tree, so if you could pull again, it should now
have what the original message described.

No doubt my screwup is just a variant on a story you've heard more than a
few times, but for the record, here's some detail.  I saw the extra two
commits, which made no sense to me, so I examined one of the files that the
request-pull message described as different and saw no difference, so I
assumed it was just some minor confusion (maybe due to github vs
kernel.org).  Turns out that commit was a duplicate that had been in my
tree since June that I'd forgotten about, and the merge represented git
merging in the same semantic commit from a different tree.  So, I've now
rolled back my stable tree to June, re-applied just the patch I wanted you
to pull, and retested the tree -- and confirmed that git request-pull
actually now produces the output in my earlier email.

I'll make sure this doesn't happen again.
-- 
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/